Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
But eating animals is not necessary for the survival of the species, if anything our current way of farming animals is detrimental to our survival.

Like I said previously I wouldn't have a problem eating an animal in a life-or-death situation but when it's possible to survive without eating an
animal (and it is) the only justification for doing so can be that you like eating meat. And that is not a moral justification at all.

See now devolution wanted to just talk about the morals of eating plants vs animals and yet here we are, back to nutrition as an argument becasue
it's all a part and parcel of it.

Some of us believe that the body functions best when small quantities of meat are introduced. This doesn't mean eating meat every day and it does
mean eating the healthier meats. I linked studies that have shown the problems with eating a vegan or vegetarian diet. So no it's not all about taste
and to discount people so readily using that idea is wrong.

1
Ok I will replace the orange with a tree. Is that ok for you?
So I will take a tree and chop it in to peaces, the parts from the tree
will still react, are all the parts now self aware each? If the tree was aware, it should of died when I cut it. What if I stab the tree in it's
awarness? (where is the location of that)

Simply put if a tree has awareness how do you kill it since you can cut it in milon peaces and it would still react the same way to the enviorment.

I can't beilive I'm even debating this, it's childish to even consider that
plats are aware.

Plants may be alive, but awareness is long way down the road.
We can debate if insects have it, it's more accetable.

Okay... it's been shown that the "center" that controls a frog's swimming capacity is in its spinal cord, not it's brain. Meaning if you cut a
frog's head off, it'll still swim if you drop it in water. So where is the frog's center of awareness? Does this make a frog non-sentient?

Where's the tree's center of awareness? I don't know. I wouldn't automatically assume it doesn't have one just because it lacks a brain though.
It may be that a tree's "central awareness" is contained in no single organ, such as a brain works for humans, but is distributed throughout the
plant, more like a nervous system is in humans. Instead of feeding back to a brain organ, the parts just communicate directly to each other. I'm not
a botanist... can anyone chime in on this? Anyway, to pepsi78: Would that type of awareness structure make the tree a non-entity by your definition?
Why?

Just a thought but if plants really can feel pain then am i, as a bonsai enthusist a plant torturer?!?! I mean i twist them into shapes, chop off a
chunk of their roots every couple of years and trim them all summer. To get smaller leaves i sometimes reduce the fertilizer i give them, which is
basically starvation.

gn- what does this mean for vegetarians:
cb- when humans approached the plants with the intention to ingest them plants would flatline the polygraph (0 galvanic response)...and perhaps the
original intention of saying a food blessing was to prepare the item for assimilation.

gn - do plants have emotion
cb - plants seem to exhibit memory in form of habituated responses to stimuli, and as indicated on the polygraph, exhibit responses to human
emotion.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I wanted to comment on what I did read.

First off, plants do move. I have a couple indoor coleus blumei plants that I've kept alive for five years now and have grown some other plants
indoors under grow lights before. Plants fascinate me, so I have observed them a lot as they have grown.

While it is true that a plant will grow towards the nearest light source, the leaves and shoots definitely bend or twist themselves so that the leaf
face is facing the light source. For example, if I were to leave a plant in front of a bright french door window facing the same direction every day,
the adult leaves (which are NOT growing anymore) will twist to face the window so that they are absorbing the most light possible. If I were to turn
that plant 180 degrees so those leaves were now facing away from the window, they would twist to face the window again before the day was over. Again,
these leaves are not growing, but reacting to the change in circumstances. Their only function as adult leaves is to absorb light. New growing shoots
will do the same thing as they are still flexible enough to do so as well as the leaves on that shoot twisting as adult leaves do. This is reality,
plants do move based on the environment around them.

Also, here's a question. If animals, like cows for example, were humanely killed before being stripped of their meat, would it still be an issue? I
don't have a problem at all with people who do not choose to eat meat, but I do have a problem when those people (PETA) try to force their beliefs on
others. I will agree that the way cows are slaughtered is inhumane and horrible to watch as I did see some videos of this happening. It's horrific to
watch and hear them screaming and I do believe there is a better way to go about this.

Another thing I have a problem with that some vegetarians will do is to force an obligate carnivore, such as a cat, to eat vegetarian as well. I find
it ironic that they are for the proper treatment of animals, yet they will force a cat to eat a diet that they aren't designed to handle and
ultimately shorten their life span. This is such hypocrisy and being a cat lover, is terrible and selfish IMO. Cats eat meat. Even after many decades
of domestication, a cat's biology and *need* for meat has not changed. Even dogs are carnivores and would fall into this category.

By the way, I think the reason we are so against eating dogs and cats is because we don't want to eat the "cute" animals. Humans form emotional
bonds with their animals, but there aren't many who can say they have a pet cow. So when someone talks about eating cats or dogs, people think of
their own pets or a friend's pets or whatever and become outraged and offended at the idea. Dogs and cats are family to millions of people, so I
would say this is a major factor in people being so against eating them.

It's not pain because there is no brain, it's just a reaction, where is the brain?????????? If they wack me in the head and leave me dead
,and let's say I have a gold tooth, if they pull it out I don't feel zip.
And under that tooth there is a nerve but since I';m dead in my brain I don't feel the nerve.

I have debated this, a virus is it aware? or are my antibodies aware?

They act even more elaborate than plants when it comes to defence and strategy.

Also, can you explain how this would apply to worms, since worms can be cut a few times to form more worms? Are you saying worms don't feel pain,
and/or aren't "entities" as you put it, because they can survive if you cut them into multiple pieces?

I think basing the morality of eating an animal based purely on whether it feels pain is simplistic, there are other factors that need to be
considered when judging an entity's right to life. As such a carrot would be less important morally than a chimpanzee for example, as the chimp has
a greater capacity to reason, feel emotion and has a greater impact on the life of those around it.

It's hard to imagine carrots reacting similarly to the death of a loved one.

While pigs, cows and other 'food' animals may not have the intelligence or emotional capacity of a chimp, they nevertheless are social animals and
are also capable of emotions. In my view they are less important morally than humans or great apes but still of much greater importance than
vegetables. That is why I say regardless of whether plants feel pain or not there is still a greater moral case for eating them before eating an
animal.

Also, can you explain how this would apply to worms, since worms can be cut a few times to form more worms? Are you saying worms don't feel pain,
and/or aren't "entities" as you put it, because they can survive if you cut them into multiple pieces?

Okay... it's been shown that the "center" that controls a frog's swimming capacity is in its spinal cord, not it's brain. Meaning if you cut a
frog's head off, it'll still swim if you drop it in water.

That is simply because the frog wanted to move in that direction before you cut off it's head, it's doing the last known comand given by the brain,
repeats it. The body is not aware the head is missing, because the body is not aware/thinking so it repeats the command until it runs out of oxigen
and dies. It's mechanical behavior, if you touch it will not react, it will just keep on moving in that direction.That is no awareness, chicken also
do that. Now cut off the head while the frog is in deep comma,it's body won't run anywhere, wonder why ? No commands before head gets taken off.

Second regarding the frogs spinal coord, skills are skills, my hand can preform things with dexterity, it does not mean it has it's own awareness.
I guide it with my brain.

I think basing the morality of eating an animal based purely on whether it feels pain is simplistic, there are other factors that need to be
considered when judging an entity's right to life. As such a carrot would be less important morally than a chimpanzee for example, as the chimp has
a greater capacity to reason, feel emotion and has a greater impact on the life of those around it.

It's hard to imagine carrots reacting similarly to the death of a loved one.

While pigs, cows and other 'food' animals may not have the intelligence or emotional capacity of a chimp, they nevertheless are social animals and
are also capable of emotions. In my view they are less important morally than humans or great apes but still of much greater importance than
vegetables. That is why I say regardless of whether plants feel pain or not there is still a greater moral case for eating them before eating an
animal.

I dont know, first of all pigs have been shown to be as smart if not smarter than dogs.

Secondly whats more morally important the being that can do all the things listed, or the being that nourishes it?

If you look at it from say a cows point of view I'm sure you would find the grass you eat more important if not more moral than the person who is
going to eat the cow.

Plants rarely ever harm anyone or anything that isnt trying to hurt them. How more moral can it get than that?

Worms just like insects have tiny brains that are capabile of reacting to instinctis, unlike others, worms have more then one brain, it's why they
stay alive. If you cut one end it will have the other end.
Nothing that is self aware or at least instictual can stay alive without a brain. If you cut a worm in many pices it will die.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Worms just like insects have tiny brains that are capabile of reacting to instinctis, unlike others, worms have more then one brain, it's why they
stay alive. If you cut one end it will have the other end.

I dont know about the multiple brains, I think thats false, but the old cut an earthworm into pieces and each one grows into a new worm is patently
false. An old urban myth. Sometimes you can cut one "in half" and the front end will repair and continue to live but the back end as far as I know
never grows a head, or repairs and continues on with life.

I have seen two different supposed carnivores, cats and dogs, munch on grass of their own free will.

They will eat grass when they are lacking in something in an attempt to find it and I have read a thing or two suggesting that they will eat grass
when they are sick to make themselves puke in an attempt to rid themselves of something. A cat's digestive system does not handle plant matter very
well which is why they will usually throw up shortly afterwards. Meat should be the primary ingredient in a cat's diet.

That is simply because the frog wanted to move in that direction before you cut off it's head, it's doing the last known comand given by the brain,
repeats it.

Now cut off the head while the frog is in deep comma,it's body won't run anywhere, wonder why ? No commands before head gets taken off.

This is not true. Like I said, it will swim even in a deep coma. That's because the spinal cord controls the swimming motion, not the brain. I'm
sure doing some research on this phenomena on the net will clarify what I'm saying. Pull it out of water, cut of it's head... there's no motion.
Nothing. Drop it in water, it will start to swim. Then destroy it's spinal cord. Drop it in water. No swimming.

I edited my last post to you with some more questions that clarify what I'm getting at. If you don't mind having another look.

I have seen two different supposed carnivores, cats and dogs, munch on grass of their own free will.

They will eat grass when they are lacking in something in an attempt to find it and I have read a thing or two suggesting that they will eat grass
when they are sick to make themselves puke in an attempt to rid themselves of something. A cat's digestive system does not handle plant matter very
well which is why they will usually throw up shortly afterwards. Meat should be the primary ingredient in a cat's diet.

Yes I have heard that before. I have also heard they seek out specific plants or grasses.

edit: found this too

Dogs tend to self-medicate their bodies and regulate behavior through occasional ingestion of plants, as the diets they often receive in captivity
are vastly different than what they would eat in the wild. Dogs are not simply carnivorous, and can be often seen hunting for roots and fruits. Since
dogs evolved from wolves, in the wild, wolves and dogs may eat an herbivore prey that they have killed, and often first go for the stomach area of the
carcass where they will find roots, leaves and berries.

Plants are Alive
Planet is Alive
& together we thrive
~they sustain and contain a vast network of innumerably diverse lifeforms in consciousness~

the study presented by op, and the experiements of cleve baxter, do indicate an awareness, or consciousness of living plants.
this does not equate to the experience of pain - yet that sole subjective experience need not direct our conscience with regards to the morality of
consuming any classes of beings.
compassion for Life~

similarity and dissimilarity of form is not a basis to -infer- similarity and dissimilarity of function...plants, animals and humans are all diversely
functioning forms of energy...
so, any objective evidence will only be an 'inference' of what can only be subjectively experienced!

this is not to advocate any side of this discussion - simply to state that there are many authoritative posts in this thread presenting objective
evidence to describe subjective experiences - and like an earlier post satired, 'are there any here who can transform into a plant and tell us what
its like (or an animal or another human for that matter).

we are not the authors, and authority, of this creation.
we merely read it and understand Life.

let our words cease to be instruments of division
and use our conscious intent to appreciate our unity

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.